Nilay Patel

A pervasive criticism of arbitration broadly is, well, it's a service, right?

It's fee for service even though the AAA is a nonprofit.

There are other –

I would say more rapacious providers of arbitration services that do run them as for-profit businesses.

You have clients.

The clients have to be happy with the outcomes.

And that does feel like it changes how people perceive the whole process.

As you automate that, right, and you have big clients who are paying for lots and lots of arbitration, and they can see that the automated system is either helping them or hurting them, should that affect how people think about the fairness of the system overall?

These are fundamentally your clients, and you're building a tool for them.

Yeah, but let me just contrast that to your previous role in the state courts as the Chief Justice in Michigan.

The Michigan Supreme Courts belong to everybody in Michigan.

No matter who the parties are, they're yours.

You're paying taxes.

You walk in and maybe they work and maybe they don't and maybe no one knows who was at the function saying what.

But it belongs to you in some way equally.

In arbitration, there was recently a case like Disney said to somebody trying to sue them in a theme park.

You signed the arbitration agreement for Disney+.

Like we're going to arbitration.

That's pretty one-sided.

That form does not belong to both parties equally.